Karnataka High Court
Sri Akash @ Aksah Gowda vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44060
CRL.P No. 5448 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5448 OF 2021
Between:
Sri Akash @ Akash Gowda
S/o Sri Rajendra ,
Aged about 24 years,
R/at No. 639, 2nd Cross,
Hebbal 2nd Stage,
Mysore City
...Petitioner
(By Sri Manu B.P., Advocate)
And:
1. State of Karnataka
by V V Puram Police
Narasimharaja Sub Division,
Mysore City,
Rep. by The Public Prosecutor,
Digitally signed High Court Building,
by VEERENDRA Bengaluru -560001.
KUMAR K M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. Sri Siddappa S.,
KARNATAKA S/o Late Siddappa,
R/at No. 258/A,
1st Main Road,
2nd Stage, Gokulam,
Mysore
3. Sri. Snehamayi Krishna
Father name not known
Major in age,
R/at No.335,
Bandipaalya,
Ganapathi, Ashrama Post,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44060
CRL.P No. 5448 of 2021
Mysore - 25
...Respondents
(By Sri Rajat Subramanyam, HCGP, for R1;
Sri Lakshmikanth K., Advocate, for R2 & R3)
This Criminal Petition is filed u/s.482 Cr.P.C praying to
quash Cr.No.10/2021 pending on the file of VI Additional Civil
Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C., J.L.B. Road, Mysuru which is
registered by the respondent No.1 police, against the
petitioner/accused for commission of offences p/u/s 306, 420,
468 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition, coming on for admission, this day,
order was made therein as under:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
Though this matter is listed for admission, with the consent of both the parties, the same is taken up for final hearing and disposed off by this order.
2. The petitioner being the sole accused is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him in Crime No.10/2021 by V.V.Puram police, Mysuru, now pending on the file of learned VI Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC Court, Mysuru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 420 and 468 of Indian Penal Code ( in short IPC).
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:44060 CRL.P No. 5448 of 2021
3. Brief facts of the case are that :
Respondent No.2 filed the first information with respondent No.1/police alleging that the deceased Jayanth Kumar is his son. He died due to massive heart attack. He thought that it was a natural death. However, subsequently he found out that the petitioner had instigated the deceased and taken huge loan from him. However, petitioner had obtained blank cheques from the deceased and he used to intimidate him and also threaten him to misuse the blank cheques. Therefore, the informant suspected that the death of the deceased may be due to the acts of the petitioner. Hence, he requested the police to register the case and to investigate into the matter. In the meantime, petitioner has approached this court to quash the proceedings in the interest of justice.
4. Heard Sri Manu B.P, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajat Subramanyam, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri -4- NC: 2024:KHC:44060 CRL.P No. 5448 of 2021 Lakshmikanth K, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Perused the materials on records.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a false complaint came to be filed by respondent No.2 at the instance of respondent No.3. It is never the contention of respondent No.2 that the deceased had committed suicide and petitioner is responsible for the same, but on the other hand it is throughout the contention of respondent No.2 that the deceased died due to massive heart attack and therefore Section 306 of IPC cannot be invoked.
6. Learned counsel submitted that initially on 23.09.2020, i.e., about a month after the death of the deceased, respondent No.2 had filed a similar complaint with V.V.Puram police station. The same was closed by the police as there was no substance in the same. Subsequently, similar complaint was filed before Metagalli Police Station. They have also not registered any complaint, but have given an endorsement stating that -5- NC: 2024:KHC:44060 CRL.P No. 5448 of 2021 there is no substance in the allegations and if there is any civil dispute that can be settled before the civil court. It is thereafter the present complaint came to be filed on 26.02.2021. Due to the influence wielded by respondent No.3-an RTI activist, the FIR came to be registered. Therefore, it is a clear case of misuse of the process of the court.
7. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has filed suit O.S.No.211/2021 on 06.02.2021 seeking recovery of the money from respondent No.2 and others. Similarly, respondent No.2 filed the suit O.S.No.254/2021 against the petitioner for recovery of the amount and after these developments the present complaint came to be filed on 26.02.2021.
8. Learned counsel submits that the additional documents produced by the petitioner disclose that the mother of the deceased declared that the death of the deceased was due to massive heart attack to claim the death benefits of the deceased. Under such -6- NC: 2024:KHC:44060 CRL.P No. 5448 of 2021 circumstances, he prays for allowing the petition in the interest of justice.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposing the petition submitted that the real cause of death is to be found out by the police by investigating into the matter. Therefore this is not a fit case for quashing the proceedings. Accordingly, he prays for dismissing the petition.
10. Learned HCGP fairly concedes that the averments made in the first information do not attract Section 306 of IPC as it is the specific contention of respondent No.2 that the deceased died due to heart attack. However, he prays for passing appropriate order.
11. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the Petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?"-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:44060 CRL.P No. 5448 of 2021 My answer to the above point is in 'Affirmative' for the following:
REASONS
12. Respondent No.2 who is the father of the deceased lodged the first information specifically stating that on 21.08.2020 the deceased had pain in his legs and an abrasion was there. Immediately he was taken to a doctor at 05.00 a.m. The doctor advised respondent No.2 not to worry and asked him to bring his son to the clinic at 09.15 a.m. Later the deceased started experiencing pain in his chest and he also started vomiting. He was taken to Columbia Asia Hospital, but in the meantime he died and the doctor at the Columbia Asia Hospital declared him dead due to massive heart attack. Therefore the post mortem examination of the deceased was not insisted and his last rites were conducted. Later respondent No.2 came to know that there was financial dealings between the deceased and the petitioner and the petitioner had obtained loan of Rs.85,00,000/-. He had also obtained -8- NC: 2024:KHC:44060 CRL.P No. 5448 of 2021 blank cheques and he was intimidating the deceased, as a result he must have suffered heart attack. Therefore he requested the police to register the case and investigate into the matter. The averments made in the first information by respondent No.2 prima facie discloses that deceased had died due to heart attack. He was in fact taken to doctor in the early morning and thereafter to Columbia Asia Hospital. The doctors declared him as dead due to massive heart attack. It is never the contention of respondent No.2 that the deceased had died by committing suicide. Under such circumstances, Section 306 of IPC cannot be invoked. Admittedly, the post mortem examination of the deceased was not done as respondent No.2 accepted the cause of death given by the doctors at Columbia Asia Hospital. Under such circumstances, even if investigation is undertaken by the investigating officer, no fruitful purpose would be served to attract Section 306 of IPC.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:44060 CRL.P No. 5448 of 2021
13. It is the contention of respondent No.2 that the petitioner had borrowed huge sums of money from the deceased and had taken blank cheques. Admittedly, respondent No.2 filed the suit O.S.254/2021 for recovery of the amount from the petitioner. It is also admitted that the petitioner has filed O.S.211/2021 against respondent No.2 and others for recovery of the amount. It is stated that the said suit was filed on 06.02.2021. It is only thereafter the present complaint came to be filed on 26.02.2021.
14. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.2 had approached respondent No.1/police on 23.09.2020 and also Metagalli Police Station making similar allegations, but initially no FIR came to be filed. However, the FIR came to be registered only on 26.02.2021 after filing of the suit O.S.No.211/2021. Considering all these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the registration of the FIR by the respondent No.1/police is a clear abuse of
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44060 CRL.P No. 5448 of 2021 process of law and therefore the criminal proceedings is liable to be quashed.
15. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The FIR registered in Crime No.
10/2021 of V.V.Puram Police Station,
Mysuru, for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 420 and 468 of Indian Penal Code on the file of VI Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC Court, Mysuru, is hereby quashed.
In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.Nos. 1 and 2/2023 does not survive for consideration. Hence, they stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(M G UMA) JUDGE CKL/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 21